Advance

By Too Conservative

Â

I am going to be running around for the next couple of days and probably won’t get to post alot.

Tomorrow Gov. Huckabee’s wife Janet will be attending the Advance and will also speak before the Straw Poll on Saturday.

I hope many of y’all will get to meet and speak with her over the weekend.

I’ll be at the Advance both days and will be updating my Twitter page with thoughts and happenings.

My page is here:

http://twitter.com/tooconservative


Comments

  • Can anyone explain to me why this is called the “Advance”? That is the stupidest name for a political gathering ever.

  • snd says:

    Nothing on the “Loyalty Oath” today? I’m disappointed.

    It seems that the LCRC has infiltrated the VAGOP.

    Since both of the primaries are contested and held on the same day, this was a really stupid move. Cross-over voting will be very low in this instance.

  • Craig Orndorff says:

    LI,

    From what I understand Don Huffman’s reasoning was that Republicans should never be on the “retreat” (what one might call an event where an organization reviews its performance over the past year) but rather should always be on the Advance.

    It’s certainly odd, but I think there’s a certain quaintness to it that makes one long for the eternally optimistic RPV of the 1970s……of course there’s much not to want back from that era, as well.

  • Thanks Craig! I don’t know why I didn’t see that before, but that could be because I hate the term “retreat” for any type of gethering as well.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    The loyalty oath issue proves (one would hope to Mr. Huffman’s chagrin – but, knowing him a little bit, I doubt it) that the Republican Party in Virginia is in full, death spiral retreat.

  • Loudoun Outsider says:

    LI

    Craig is right. The meeting is called the “Advance” because the word “retreat” was thought to have negative connotations.

  • t says:

    Ironically, ever since we started calling it the Advance, we’ve been on the retreat.

  • Philip Thomas says:

    A few observations here:

    First, the hypocracy of the Democrats, who seem to have a cottage industry going bemoaning the “exclusionary” Republican pledges, is noteworthy. I would direct everyone’s attention to today’s Leesburg Today where the Loudoun County Democratic Committee has posted an ad for their upcoming party caucus in December. Guess what one needs to sign in order to participate in this LCDC caucus? You guessed it. A loyalty pledge no different from the one that the LCRC requires at its events. I am sure that TC and LI can get a copy of this LCDC pledge and link to it.

    I will now await the outrage over this Democratic loyalty pledge in the Washington Post. I am sure that they will criticize it with the same gusto that they showed in criticizing the Republich loyalty pledge.

    Second, I will be going to the Advance so that I learn from the Huckabee camp how Charlie Darwin’s theory of evolution is false.

  • For all the griping about t, every once in a while we get really awesome comment like #7. I for one would miss t if he ever stopped showing up here!

    Philip, I noticed that as well and I’ve heard several people have already resigned from the LCDC because of it. Let’s just end all of this ridiculousness and pass party registration. Now.

  • I know folks that have resigned from the LCDC because of the pledge. Very smart people.

    Philip, let us know what kind of answer you get on that creation/evolution thing.

  • Common Idiot says:

    The phrasing of the Democrats pledge differs only slightly from the Republicans, but the impact is significant.

    The membership section of the Party Plan of the Democratic Party of Virginia provides, “No person shall participate in a Democratic primary . . . who intends to support a candidate opposed to any Democratic nominee . . .” To me, that means you can’t go into a primary with the intention of supporting the Republican in the general election. Seems fair enough.

    The Republicans’ on the other hand, insists on allegiance to the Republican nominee in the general election regardless of who it may be in that membership is open to those voters “who, if requested, express in open meeting either orally or in writing as may be required their intent to support all of its nominees for public office in the ensuing election.” That, to me, requires blind allegiance to the party.

    I haven’t seen the pledge expected from LC Dems, but we all know the LCRC pledge is fairly similar to the party plan. I’d love to see what the LCDC pledge actually says.

  • Here it is:

    “Each person participating in a caucus must provide written certification that he or she: a) is a Democrat; b) is a registered voter within the jurisdiction for which the caucus is held; c) believes in the principles of the Democratic Party; and d) does not intend to support any candidate who is opposed to a Democratic nominee in the next ensuing election.”

    I the undersigned, having read the above provisions, hereby state that I am a Democrat, that I am a registered voter in the Precinct and County listed below, that I believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, and that I do not intend to support any candidate who is opposed to a Democratic nominee in the next ensuing election.

  • David says:

    What the LCDC pledge means is that people are agreeing to not openly support an opponent in any race in which a Democratic nominee is running. It has zippo to do with who one actually votes for, and doesn’t even assume active support for a candidate, only non-support for their opponent. This seems to me to be a reasonable minimum requirement for a partisan organization – otherwise, why have parties at all?

    Do I understand you all to be reading the Republican pledge as a pledge to VOTE for the Republican nominee, no matter who it turns out to be? That’s pretty ridiculous, IMO.

  • Common Idiot says:

    Thanks, Edmundo, and, yes, David, I think you read it correctly.

    The Dem pledge requires that the voter not have a current intent to support the opposition candidate as opposed to the Republicans’ which requires the voter to pledge support for all Republican candidates wining the primary, whomever they may be. To me, that’s a world of difference.

  • I do see the distinction after reading them both.

  • Sanity says:

    The LCDC pledge is only for members of the LCDC. No written pledge is required for a Dem primary.

    There’s a big difference between asking someone to sign a pledge to become a member of a committee and asking someone to do the same just to vote in a primary.

    There are many more Dem’s not members of the LCDC just as there are many more Repub’s not members of the LCRC.

    To me, it shows that Republicans at the state level (as well as the LCRC) are still running scared. (Like the “Advance”. Laughable name.)

  • G. Stone says:

    There are the same. You can BS yourselves all you want.
    If you sign the pledge saying you are not going to support a non Dem that is a defacto pledge that you will support the Dem ANY Dem. What is the alternative not vote !
    These pledges are in essence all the same,Vote for our guy not their guy.

    These things are like reaching over your head to scratch your ass. They are ALL silly. Register by party or independent and all of this foolishness goes away.

  • JTR says:

    David, CI
    The words “openly” support or “current” intent do not appear in either pledge. I think both pledges are essentially the same, and both are ridiiculus and non enforceble. One is a positive approach “I intend to support all …” (GOP) and the other says it negativly, “I intend not to support a candidate in opposition to …” What’s the difference. Also the Dems are only using theirs at a internal function, and RPV is insisting on theirs at an open state run primary. This primary is one of the few chances we get in VA to actually identify who is a R and who is a D. Remember the poll books are turned over to the parties after the election. This then becomes a real treasure of info on whos who in the electorate. Why would anyone want to risk allienating anyone who is willing to identify their stripes, be they hard or soft. Oh, I forgot they must also be pure!!!

  • Chris says:

    I rented Janet Huckabee and her daughter a car when she got in the other night.

  • Common Idiot says:

    Stone and GTR,

    There are distinctions between the pledges in terms of what is actually pledged, but, instead of debating semantics, let me just agree with you on the big point — they’re both ridiculous.

    Why the heck is it that we can’t get a closed primary? What are the politics behind getting such a bill passed?

  • David says:

    No, actually Sanity got it right – the LCDC pledge only applies to committee members, not voters in the primary – a huge difference I didn’t even catch.

    JTR, you are correct; the word “openly” doesn’t appear in the LCDC pledge (I didn’t use the term “current”). What I described is how it has been verbally, publicly presented, and is my understanding of how committee members interpret the pledge in practice.

Leave Comment